When is an offender not a criminal? Instrumentality distinguishes self-reported offending of criminals
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JCP-09-2013-0025 |
| Published date | 09 September 2014 |
| Pages | 116-128 |
| Date | 09 September 2014 |
| Author | Donna Youngs,David Canter |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology,Criminal psychology |
When is an offender not a criminal?
Instrumentality distinguishes self-reported
offending of criminals
Donna Youngs and David Canter
Dr Donna Youngs is a
Research Leader/Associate
Director and David Canter is a
Professor, both are based at
International Research Centre
for Investigative Psychology
(IRCIP), University of
Huddersfield,
Huddersfield, UK.
Abstract
Purpose – Although most aetiological theories of crime assume that offenders are a distinct subset of the
population, there is evidence that many illegal acts are committed by people who have no convictions and
are therefore not regarded as criminals. The question consequently arises as to whether there are aspects
of illegal actions that set convicted offenders apart. The paper aims to discuss these issues.
Design/methodology/approach – To answer this, a 45-item self-report questionnaire was administered
to two samples (males 15-29 years): 185 prisoners and 80 young men without convictions.
Findings – The results draw attention to a distinguishing psychological dimension of instrumentality
operating across the range of offence forms. Convicted offendersare more likely to commit crimes for direct
gratification with intent when compared with the sorts of illegal activities that non-convicted respondents
report they have done.
Research limitations/implications – Careful matching of convicted criminals and those without
convictions is extremely difficult. Future research that explores other non-criminal samples would therefore
be of value.
Practical implications – Interventions with people who commit crimes need to carefully distinguish
between those who are determined criminals and those whose activities are more likely to be part of an
opportunistic culture.
Originality/value – The results challenge conceptualisation of criminals and criminality as something
always distinct from those without convictions. It thus has implications for what theories of crime
should seek to explain. The significance of instrumentality also give further force to the legal emphasis on
men’s area.
Keywords Decriminalisation, General population offending, Instrumentality, Self-report offending
Paper type Research paper
Theories of crime, whether concerned with the social context, personality and psychological
characteristics or patterns of social learning and experience, seek to explain why it is that certain
individuals become criminals while others do not. The assumption at the core of these attempts
to explain criminality is that criminal acts represent a distinct set of behaviours that are not
part of normal human activity. Yet, the behaviours described as criminal are wide ranging and
psychologically diverse. Furthermore, it is recognised that the general population who have
no criminal convictions also commit many acts that are technically illegal (e.g. Hales et al.,
2009). It is therefore of value to establish whether or not there are any psychological differences
between those whom society defines as criminals and others who have committed illegal acts
but have no convictions.
For clarity, in the presentpaper the term “Offender” is used to describe the latter group and the
term “Criminal” is used to describe those with criminal records, who in the present study
were serving time in prison or where on probation. However, both groups “offend” in that they
PAGE 116
j
JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY
j
VOL. 4 NO. 2 2014, pp. 116-128, CEmerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 2009-3829 DOI 10.1108/JCP-09-2013-0025
To continue reading
Request your trial